Amid ongoing controversies surrounding the appointment of US Attorneys, the position in New Jersey faces significant uncertainty as Alina Habba’s interim role nears its expiration.
Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Habba, one of President Donald Trump’s personal lawyers, as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey four months ago.
Despite her high-profile connections, Habba’s background raised eyebrows; she had no prior experience as a prosecutor leading to a series of contentious investigations against elected Democrats.
Habba’s tenure was marked by dubious prosecutions, including a failed case against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and a contentious investigation into US Rep. LaMonica McIver.
As her appointment expires this week, there is confusion surrounding who holds the title of US Attorney in New Jersey following state and legal protocols that dictate such appointments.
Law dictates that Bondi’s authority allows for the appointment of interim US Attorneys for a maximum of 120 days.
There is some ambiguity as to whether Habba’s term ended earlier this week or if she remains in office until the end of this week, but one fact remains clear: once the time lapses, her appointment ceases.
According to federal law, after Habba’s tenure, the district court in New Jersey may appoint a new US Attorney to fill the vacancy until a Senate-confirmed nominee is approved.
Although President Donald Trump had nominated Habba for a permanent position, her nomination is currently stalled due to pushback from New Jersey’s Democratic senators.
In a response to the upcoming vacancy, New Jersey’s federal judges issued an order designating Desiree Leigh Grace, Habba’s first assistant, to take over as US Attorney.
Bondi promptly reacted to this development, using characteristic bravado to claim Grace had been “removed” and asserting that the Department of Justice does not tolerate “rogue judges.”
However, this characterization seems misplaced; the court’s actions are legally sound.
The Constitution allows for lesser federal positions, like US Attorneys, to be filled by court appointments once their temporary authority expires, a practice authorized by Congress.
The appointment appears above board in the context of existing laws, despite the typical perception of executive power.
President Donald Trump does retain the authority to remove any sitting US Attorney, regardless of how they were appointed in the first place, although appointing a permanent replacement necessitates Senate approval.
So if Trump signed an order dismissing Grace, that removal would be legal.
Federal district judges cite valid reasons for preferring a career prosecutor over Habba, who has not distinguished herself during her time as Trump’s personal attorney.
In a notable case from 2022, Habba represented Trump in a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, which accused her of orchestrating a racketeering conspiracy.
A federal judge publicly criticized the lawsuit, labeling it as “frivolous,” concluding that it represented political grievances masquerading as legal claims.
As a result, the judge ordered sanctions on Habba and Trump’s legal team for their misconduct.
Additionally, Habba’s time as the intermediary US Attorney drew attention due to the number of investigations and prosecutions she initiated against established Democratic figures.
One prominent incident involved Baraka’s arrest during a protest against an immigrant detention facility, where the federal magistrate eventually deemed the charges misleading, prompting a backlash that led to Habba withdrawing.
Baraka has since filed a lawsuit against Habba for “malicious prosecution.”
Habba also charged Rep. McIver, asserting that she assaulted law enforcement officers during the same protest, despite federal laws allowing Congress members to enter federal immigration facilities for oversight.
In another contentious inquiry, Habba initiated an investigation into New Jersey Democratic Governor Phil Murphy and Attorney General Matt Platkin regarding a directive that limited cooperation with federal immigration efforts.
This raises questions under the Supreme Court’s “anti-commandeering” doctrine, where the federal government cannot compel states to enforce federal laws, a point reinforced in the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Murphy v. NCAA.
Moreover, Habba’s lack of genuine prosecutorial experience casts further doubt on her suitability to oversee an office with 170 lawyers.
Typically in past administrations, relationships between the Justice Department and federal judges remain amicable, recognizing the implications of antagonism.
In stark contrast, the Trump administration’s confrontational approach threatens those professional relations, suggesting discontent among judges due to Habba’s controversial actions and investigations.
With the impending departure of Habba, the real concern lies in how these tensions may impact ongoing federal prosecutions in New Jersey.
The career prosecutors under the Justice Department could face ramifications if judges choose to handle cases with diminished confidence in the department’s legal arguments, especially following Bondi’s accusations against them.
This confrontation represents a diversion from the typical governance priorities that focus on effectively addressing federal criminal activities, as the Trump administration’s strategy prioritizes political vendettas and personnel disputes.
As New Jersey navigates this constitutional impasse and political fracas, the consequences of this tumultuous administration continue to ripple throughout individuals within the federal judicial system.
image source from：vox
